The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim protection to Lucknow-based journalist, Abhishek Upadhyay who had been booked in a criminal case for authoring a post on X (formerly Twitter) on caste dynamics in appointments to the Uttar Pradesh administration [Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another].

A Division Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti also sought the Uttar Pradesh government's response to the plea filed by Upadhyay to quash the case against him.

"Issue notice to respondent. In the meanwhile interim protection is granted to the petitioner," the Court said.

In its order, the Court also commented on a journalist's right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It said that a criminal case cannot be slapped against a journalist merely because it is critical of the government.

"In democratic nations, freedom to express one’s views are respected. The rights of the journalists are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Merely because writings of a journalist are perceived as criticism of the Government, criminal cases should not be slapped against the writer," the Court observed.

The Court further clarified that the protection granted to Upadhyay today would extend to all future first information reports (FIRs)/ criminal cases that may be lodged against him over the same issue.

During the hearing, however, the Court questioned Upadhyay's counsel for making Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath as a party to the case.

"Do you think that respondent no. 2 (referring to CM Adityanath) is a correct party?" Justice Roy asked.

The Court, eventually issued notice only to the State in the matter.

The post by Abhishek Upadhyay on X (formerly Twitter), titled "Yadav Raj versus Thakur Raj (or Singh Raj)" dealt with caste dynamics in the administrative machinery of Uttar Pradesh (UP).

A translated version of this post began with the following comment:

"Since during the tenure of Akhilesh Yadav, the media has extensively researched and run news on 'Yadav Raj', it is now necessary to discuss 'Thakur Raj' during the tenure of Yogi Adityanath."

The ensuing portion of the post included a list of persons who are allegedly from the Thakur community and are presently part of the UP administration.

The post questioned whether there was caste bias and whether the State was giving preference to members of the Thakur community in making government appointments.

An FIR was later registered against Upadhyay for his post under Sections 353(2) [hate speech], 197(1)(C) [statement against national integration], 302 (hurting religious feelings), 356 (defamation) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

The FIR was registered on a complaint by one Pankaj Kumar. The plea filed by Upadhyay to quash this case says that the journalistic piece in question did not disclose any offence punishable under any law.

The plea noted that the complainant had even said:

"Honorable Yogi Adityanath Maharaj Ji is like an incarnation of god. The Indian territory among all the Chief Ministers of various states in India, none even one come close to Maharaj Ji in terms of popularity. Maharaj Ji has the highest number of followers on the social media platform X compared to any other Chief Minister in India."

Upadhyay further submitted that he has threats via phone calls over his post.

He added that when he reported this on X in a post tagging the acting Director General of Police (DGP), he even received threats of legal action from the official X handle of the Uttar Pradesh Police in reply.

"The petitioner is continuously getting threats on social media. That it is respectfully submitted that threats are continuing including arrest, bodily injury or even encounter killing in the hands of UP police in the matter," the plea said.

The plea before the Supreme Court, which seeks the quashing of the case against Upadhyay, has been filed through Advocate Anoop Awasthi.

[Read Order]

[Read Live Coverage]